How does opening the machine up to see the circuitry prove that the software cannot turn on the camera without turning on the indicator LED? How does reverse-engineering a FOSS driver prove that the firmware doesn't have an undocumented API call to enable that mode of operation?

Well now, that really depends on what you're measuring, doesn't it?

Do I have cash? Or do I not discover the problem until I'm stood in front of the ATM, cursing at it for not dispensing any?

It's a moot point anyway, as in either situation my first recourse would be to phone the bank, not visit it.

"Information wants to be free, rent wants to be paid".

I don't have time to read it properly now (I'm at work), but the issue may be a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is - that is, that it must be falsifiable. This means that a theory must make predictions that can be tested; e.g. "if I do X, I expect Y to happen". If you do X, and Y happens, then you have evidence to support the theory; if Z happens, you must either modify your theory or throw it out and look for one that does explain the observations.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, makes no such predictions; it merely says "these things are too complex to be due to chance, therefore they aren't". The fundamental thing to understand is that even if that is correct it is not a theory in the scientific sense, and so should not be taught in science class. By all means use it to investigate evolution and attempt to demonstrate that evolution is wrong; once you succeed, come up with a new scientific theory and teach that in science class.

Actually I suspect that at least some of that mod is because while Insightful gives karma, Funny doesn't, and some people care about that sort of thing.

And there I was thinking that the primary purpose of an actor/actress was to act. Silly me.

What, your ATMs won't dispense $50-$100 at a time?

I'm 37 and it seems like a long time to me, too.

You're thinking of the Working Time Directive.

In which case you're not actually beating anything, are you?

You know what really winds me up? Articles that start paragraphs with "but".

You do realise that prior art is a factor in patent cases, not copyright cases, right? The defences against being sued for copyright infringement are 1) I didn't do it, 2) it's covered by fair use*, or 3) you don't own the copyright (and/or it's in the public domain), piss off.

(* if such a thing exists in your jurisdiction; I believe that it does not here in the UK, but of course IANAL)

I see what you're aiming for, but nobody drops initial Cs like that.

Well, yes and no - deceleration is just the name we give to the special case of accelerating in exactly the opposite direction to your motion, such that the only (direct/intended) effect is to change the speed you're moving at.

If there's any problem at all with calling it deceleration it's that it can confuse people into thinking that there's something special about it compared to "normal" acceleration.